Carlos Monzon Vs Hearns - Is This The Worst, Fight At Middle For Tommy?

Thats the thing everything looks so good on paper and then he comes to the actual performances ... And Hearns is 0-2 on how good he was supposed to do in his biggest MW fights .. And thats just the reality of it ... People want to arm chair how great he is going to do ,, and it just wasnt in the cards for him at MW .. He got smoked bad twice, two 3rd round KO's .. wtf do people need to realize ? Tommy Hearns is my favorite fighter , always has been always will be .. but I'm not going to make him into this great MW that he wasnt ,, especially at Carlos Monzon's expense

 

Tommy gets in front boxing well but gradually Monzon starts getting to him. Tommy is stopped late

 

And that's my point in a nutshell.

 

I'm sorry but I'm just not buying it

 

sorry you are right .. I did forget to mention Terry Norris
Norris KO 1 Monzon
Norris KO 1 Hearns

 

Oh yes. and after Pipino Cuevas knocks out Monzon in the 1st, what's next for Cuevas then?

 

Ya the posts are clearly agenda driven ,, Hearns had a clear height and reach advantage over Hagler more than he would have had on Monzon .. And Carlos had a chin every bit as hagler did ,,, or close enough to it as he was never stopped .. so the logic falls on its face ... They are only excuses for Hearns because he got bombed out twice .. well i listed about 5 reasons why so far Hearns failed so bad in those fights ... and all you get are excuses ... because most of it all comes down to the agenda Hagler was better than Monzon ... I mean am I really going against the trend here .. I said in my first post that Hearns gets stopped in the 10 th ?? is that so far off than most other people ... I just peeled back the onion a bit more why he might get stopped earlier IMO .. like the previous 2 times where everyone here posting now was completely wrong about ,,, but they dont have the balls to admit it ,,so yeah again on paper looks pretty good ,, but in actuality he is 0-2 in ugly fashion when it "looked pretty good" before

 

lol, Hagler would have dealt with Valdez far easier than he dealt with Tommy, Hearns was better than Valdez in every way except his chin, Roldan might have beaten Valdez.

 

1st of all no one educated me on Monzon, I took the time to sit down and watch him fight. As I've done with every fighter I write about. So no, McVey or anyone else did educate me. While I have the utmost respect for McVey , ( And you to to be honest) I disagree with his and your diefication of Monzon, making him into something he wasn't I've held this opinion well before the internet became A thing.
2nd are you saying Hagler didn't push the fight to Hearns ? Same with Barkley? Hearns faults were instead of pacing himself, he decided to fight fire with fire, in those two cases it didn't work for him.
3rd Monzon , even against obvious competition he was far superior too, he fought in the same methodical way. Even his early ko's were almost carbon copies of his long fights until the time he KO'd the opponent. His fights against Boggs or Fraser started the same as his fights against Napoles, Griffith, Benvinuti, Briscoe, or Valdes
He set up his opponents, got a feel for what they were trying to do, implemented his fight plan.
4TH I have no " Big thing " for any fighter with the exception of Ali. And that's mainly for what he was willing to sacrifice . But since you choose to point out what Barkley's win rate was at Middleweight. I'll point out again Briscoe never won one a big fight, ( With the possible exception of beating Monzon in Argentina) Valdes biggest claim to fame was knocking down Monzon, and stopping Briscoe, both Griffith and Napoles were past prime natural welterweights.
No one Monzon faced was considered a great fighter with the exception of the two welterweights I've already mentioned and they were past prime. Yes I've said his competition in Argentina on his way up is extremely suspect. I stand by that.
5th Hearns gave up ring IQ to know one, that includes Leonard and Benitez. All the way up to Lt Heavy and Virgil Hill. He did give up those advantages a few times to try and prove a point, but no fighter had the IQ and the overwhelming physical advantages that Hearns had. Monzon didn't have a better ring IQ than Hearns, and if he tried to fight him that way, it's an almost guaranteed L .
6th. It's obvious theirs no way for me to understand your passionate love of Monzon. What I see is a fighter with average hand speed, above average power, good ring IQ, great endurance, and durability.
In your opinion that would be enough to destroy a fighter like Hearns. In my opinion it isn't.
I trust my eyes, and time I've put in to watch the fighter without any pre conceived notion , or prejudice. Multiple times, against many different fighters.
I'm sorry, I don't see what you see. I've seen many fighters much better than he was in my opinion, even at Middleweight.
Sorry that opinion disturbs you so much.
But the better question is why does it?

 

Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum are so proud of their ignorance...and the subsequent dumbing down of this forum...that it's no fun...and definitely not a learning experience like it once was. This forum should now be known as "The General 2" forum. These guys are ruining it with their obstinate boxing illiteracy.

 

When are you going to do a thread on the great Terry Norris...and describe how he would have traveled all the way up to light heavy and knocked Bob Foster clean out of the ring with a single uppercut.

 

Is he a Norris fan then?

 

That`s pretty funny, but Norris was pretty special.

 

You have mentioned this a couple times now , ,so you must mean their draw ?... There were a lot of draws back then as I explained the scoring system . .All judges had the fight for Monzon by 2 points as he describes it ,,,

This content is protected

I'm not going argue this with you , if thats your description of these fighters than thats how you describe them . .Even though, a lot more than just a blown up welter weight, Griffith was the established WBA Middle weight champion 5 years before he fought Monzon with some good defenses there as well .. And if think Valdez was a basically not much of anything , then thats what you think .. Is that the description of Duran when he beat Leonard and took his title.. He was just a blown up shopworn LW .. or better yet just a blown up BW ....

how do you figure this ... If he knew how to hold, clinch, and stay away .. he had a chance in the fight .. He must have known he was up on the cards .. If we are talking about ring IQ on how smart a boxer fights and where they are in the fight and trying to use his advantages to fight his type of fight,, then Hearn's has made his fair share of BIG mistakes in fights imo ...

My description of Monzon would be different ... and ... I gave my reasons why it might happen to Hearns again in my other post.. we all got wrong the first 2 times around .. Why is it such a shock to you that it might happen again same way ... I think Monzon could take Hearns power just as the other strong middles did .. and then Hearns fades just as he did before
tried to respond to most everything ..
your opinion doesn't bother me .. we all have our fighters we think are a bit over rated .. And we have our fighters we defend .....I felt I was fair to Hearns in describing him as a MW .. we will pick it up again in another 4 years .. getting burnt out on the topic ..cheers to you mate
Always respect you as a poster

 

Not mentioned to lend to any particular conclusion BUT, I gotta say it, I LOVE Valdez’ KO of Briscoe.

That is some power in those mitts and Rodrigo had very nice hand speed atop. Even Monzon said Briscoe’s head was the hardest thing he ever hit. Complisult, perhaps?

Go to 1:30 for when the **** gets real for poor Bad Bennie. ATG KO imo. Hard to reconcile that Monzon got hit flush by the same guy and still was almost up before he went down. Insane chin.

This content is protected